Search results

You would need to establish FIRST that we are under the Sinai covenant, that we must obey its ordinances. Good luck with that.

Like prompting numerous KJV-only proponents to spout endlessly on the subject, poisoning people's thinking against the word of God. I already know you're stubborn. Your assertion tells me you're also either ignorant or dense. And since the KJV contains errors, it can't be the "one". Prove it.

You made the same error many KJV-only proponents make: you pretend that doctrines are built from single verses. The "doctrine" of eternal security is not undermined at all by a single difference in wording. You have to look at the entirety of the Scriptures in order to make such a determination.

Thurely thou jetht!

Jesus taught many things that were not directly from the Law of Moses. He taught many things to His followers that He did not teach to the Jewish masses. Here are a few examples: Matthew 5:28 "But I say to you, that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed...

Scripture says that Jesus did not come to abolish the law; it does not say that He didn’t abolish it. Scripture says that the Sinai covenant is obsolete. ‘Abolish’ and ‘’obsolete’ are vaguely related but are quite distinct in meaning and usage.

Ah. Thanks.

Who? Which post?

From where did you get that idea (bolded)? I don't know of any Scripture that says anything of the sort. Even those who have never heard of Jesus have a conscience. It may be warped, confused, misaligned, or even seared, but it's still there and (except for the last case, or with a psychopath)...

That's a strawman fallacy. Prove it from Scripture. God gave the Law to Israel, not to the gentiles. Paul made clear to the Galatians that trying to be in right relationship with God by following the Mosaic law was futile. The Holy Spirit did not lead Paul to write in opposition to the will of...

This is silly fearmongering based on circular reasoning and narrow-minded thinking. Frankly, I think you give far more credit to the devil on his ability to corrupt God's word than you do to God to preserve it. "Huge difference? No. "The words of demons"? Really? Is your confidence in God so...

You're confusing the Law of Moses with the Law of Christ. They are not the same thing. You're also making an error of scope and focus. Jesus didn't fulfill the Law by teaching people how to obey it properly; He fulfilled it by being the perfect sacrifice for sin, pouring out His blood as an...

You said that because Jesus is God's word made flesh that He embodies the Mosaic Law. If that isn't conflating them, I don't know what is. The Law is part of God's word. Jesus fulfilled the Law and superseded it, making it obsolete by His death.

Your silly comment just makes all KJV-only proponents look silly.

That isn't faith; it's faithfulness. They aren't the same thing.

Whether those are your words or a quote from someone else, they are self-righteous, arrogant, and stupid. I thought better of you.

That's circular. Jesus didn't have faith in Himself, and He didn't need His own testimony. People, believers, hold the testimony of Jesus Christ. People, believers, have faith that Jesus' sacrificial death is sufficient. Jesus didn't need to have faith in anything or anyone. As you said, Christ...

Last time I checked, it was not thoroughly correct to say that "God is Christ".

Some other verses demonstrate your error. Romans 3:3 "For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?" Does God "have faith"? If so, in what? There is none greater than Him. This can't mean "the faith that God exercises". Philippians 1:27 "Only...

We don't have faith in Jesus' faith; we have faith that the finished work of Jesus Christ is sufficient for our salvation. We've been around this bush enough.